Automaton

[double post]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Automaton

What? Does the painting say to itself "Gee, that guy who painted me is logically impossible"? I have yet to see anyone demonstrate to me a thinking painting!

Your "analogy" does nothing to bolster your case, but merely illustrates your ability for circular reasoning. Without first starting with the premise that the Christian God is the creator of the universe, how do you use this "humans have flawed reasoning" idea to show that the Christian God is the creator of the universe? You still don't seem to get it. Just because humans have incomplete and finite knowledge, does not mean we should accept each and every proposition someone pulls out of a hat just because we might be wrong. Example: I, Automaton, "painted" the universe. Who are you, a mere "painting" to disagree with me, or argue against this? Again, nothing you can say will make any difference, this concept is just as acceptable as yours. Thus, you must ask yourself now, with what hypocracy do you accept your own but deny my model?
What point are you trying to make? That paintings are poor logicians? It's not just that God is incomprehensible. I doubt any right-minded individual, atheist or otherwise, would deny this. I also find much of string theory, such as the idea of 10 or more dimensions, to be incomprehensible. But this is not the same as logically impossible. On paper, it would be very easy to show that some mathematical aspect of string theory is logically impossible, but that has never been done. If a hypothetical non-arbitrary benevolent god created a universe of infinite and eternal suffering, for no reason at all, would you consider this god to be logically impossible, or would you just shrug and say "it is beyond our comprehension." The latter may be true, but then we have no business calling that god benevolent, which is a word strictly of our own invention, our referent. This god would not be benevolent, for the simple fact that we invent the term and the god does not fulfull it.
Yeah, so? You can't rule out me as the creator just because I don't "conform to our universes standards", whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.
Why is the mere brute fact of existence evidence of a creator? Does God think to himself, "Oh, I exist, thus I must have been created."? Obviously there are some cases exceptional to this arbitrary "rule" you have invented (presumably out of your already prior belief in the Christian God, another case of circular reasoning in action.)
Hey, but this is also "evidence" that I came down as man, merely claiming I was God incarnate, as a prank.
By unseen, you probably mean unobserved, by all senses rather than just sight. But evidence is, by definition, an artefact of observation. Your "faith because of evidence" is a contradiction in terms.
This is just me again, up to my usual tricks. Do you have any actual evidence (hint: a feeling, or emotions, do not count as evidence) that this was your idea of the Christian God?
It has been fruitful.
Blasphemy! Holdens are the way to go. Maybe a good Nissan Skyline.

foursquareman

I was just illustrating that if such a God exists, then it is not possible to accurately represent Him with our own words. So therefore, you cannot disprove God using logic. This is my own conclusion.

You are right, we shouldn't just accept everything that comes our way. But I accept the Christian model through evidence, such as confirmation of the bible and what it says to what happens in my own life, plus personel experiences I credit to God's influence in my life.

I'd like to think that God knows infinitely more than I do, and I have no business advising Him in how to run the universe. Granted that to accept this explanation, you must first accept the Christian God, but if God exists outside our universe, then He is more qualified in terms of knowing what to do more than any of us.

Universe's standards as in logic and probability, sorry if I'm vague. I have not ruled you out according to these rules.

If the universe is not infinite, it must be finite. To me anything that is finite must have a beginning. If God is infinite, he does not have to have a beginning.

ok

My evidence, an artefact of observation, is based on observations of my knowledge, and the state of my heart.

Feeling and emotion count as evidence to me, but aside from that I have my rudimentary knowledge of how things work than seem to me to point to an intelligent, loving creator. Please keep in mind that I am not pushing this on you for you to believe it, but just to accept that you cannot rule out my belief as ridiculous, even if you don't believe it.

cool

I bow to your superior inteligence!

Synaesthesia

Automaton,

Isn't the point of God to have a being who can break all the rules? That's why I think attacks on the idea of God, based upon logic are misbegotten, they cannot anticipate all possible factors.

I think the fact that God is invoked to break all the rules is the fundamental flaw. Not that rules will be broken.

Thomas Metcalf

Well, that's not exactly what we would be saying. If you can say God exists, we can say God doesn't exist, I think. It seems pretty fair. Or, relatedly, if you can say you have evidence of God, we can say we have evidence of no God, in principle. That is, if you can say God has characteristics X, Y, and Z, and we know that X and Y conflict, we can know God doesn't exist.


I guess at this point I'd have to ask you what kind of God you think exists. If you think God is omnipotent, then you'd have to show that only an omnipotent being could produce what you've observed. The same goes for all other God attributes.

rainbow walking

Thomas Metcalf: Well, there are really two possible definitions of omnipotence.
1. God can perform any logically possible action.
2. God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs.

rw: The only logical way to refute number two is to “assume the existence of god” for the sake of argument and then demonstrate the inconsistency in a particular claim to one of his other assumed attributes, for instance, can an omni-benevolent god bring about a state of affairs similar to those that existed in Nazi Germany under Hitler?
Of course, the apologetic theist will then impute the demagoguery of the diabolical satan as another causative agent in any possible state of affairs which throws suspicion on Christianity’s claim of monotheism so…you put the right foot out, you put the right foot in…I personally prefer The Dire Straits “Walk Of Life”, it at least makes some interesting “points way up high”, (Bob Seagar’s “Night Moves”).


Foursquareman: You are right, we shouldn't just accept everything that comes our way. But I accept the Christian model through evidence, such as confirmation of the bible and what it says to what happens in my own life, plus personel experiences I credit to God's influence in my life.

rw: I use to interpret some of my life’s experiences through this worldview as well, and I had some bizarre experiences, experiences that could have ended my life or disfigured me horribly, so I had (what I believed) was a lot of evidence. So I, being associated with theism relationally in my association with my family, naturally accepted the explanation that god dunnit. It wasn’t until I began to honestly examine these experiences for evidence of more reasonable explanations and allowed that chance is indeed a factor in human experience, that I came to the realization that godunnit wasn’t the only or best explanation. Retreating to personal experience as evidence is the last bastion of semi-logical appeal one makes to preserve ones intellectual integrity.

As far as the bible goes, there are many books that posit fairly common and rational observations of normal human behavior. The bible doesn’t have a monopoly in this area. Aesop’s Fables convey some fairly basic moral teachings as well yet I wouldn’t recommend deifying any of its characters, would you?

No one has blind faith without some knowledge of what it is they are claiming to believe. Blindness occurs when no evidence exists to verify the claims made as knowledge. Just the ability to read and comprehend linguistic concepts is an act of logic, so no appeal to the existence of a god escapes the epistemological foundation of logic.

If personal experience is your evidence and you genuinely want others to accept your claims as true and genuinely evidential, you should, (IMHO), share them with us.

Koyaanisqatsi

An irrelevant, trivial point.

Where the universe exists.

So, once again, you're simply defining away the impossible.

Let's leave formal logic masturbatory semantics to the Freshman, on this, shall we, since it serves no purpose?

Apply Topos theory, where the real world exists.

Right, so you're simply defining away the paradox and since two of those "essential attributes" are that he is ineffable and incomprehensible to man, that's a safe and pointless bet.

So, in other words: God is arbitrarily defined--not by "his" own existence, but by humanity--as "a necessary being that can do anything logically possible."

Congratulations. You just came and nothing is resolved.

It is not possible to arrest the orbits of a solar system with no side effects by will alone, unless of course you enter into fiction and simply create a character whose defining "essential attribute" is: can arrest the orbits of a solar system with no side effects by will alone.

Operative word being, of course, "fiction."

Whether it is "logically possible" or not is entirely irrelevant, so, once again, have fun with that.

Thomas Metcalf

I don't think so. All definitions are arbitrary; it's up to us to determine whether our definitions apply to anything "out there" in reality. I still don't see why you don't think the being mentioned above would be God.

You're assuming that God does not exist, then, because you're assuming that it is impossible to create the state of affairs you mention.

<strong> Once again, you've provided utterly no reason for us to believe your position. Please do not reply until you have something to say.

Thomas Metcalf

In my experience, the best response to that sort of criticism is that such a state of affairs, if the evil is gratuitous, is logically impossible and therefore un-bring-about-able. My own counter-response is that the only reason it's logically impossible is that God will not allow it. A being, S, that does not choose for anything to happen, would be omnipotent, because S will never choose to bring about any state of affairs, and the state of affairs S chose to bring about would therefore be logically impossible.

The primary way I try to refute 2 is to point out that it is possible to conceive of a much more powerful being than such a being, and this is paradoxical. An omnipotent being should be the most powerful conceivable being, but imagine a being that can bring about any logically possible state of affairs and do any logically possible action. Such a being would be far more powerful than God.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, actually they are not when you're talking about an actual being. The being is what would define itself, not us defining it. When we define something, we engage in fiction, no matter how close it may or may not come to whatever facts are in evidence.

In this case, there are no facts in evidence, just a claim, which contains as necessary essential attributes "ineffable" and "incomprehensible to man."

This therefore means "undefineable."

In other words, the claim has (deliberately and by design) defeated any attempts by anyone to define this alleged creature, get it?

The claim (not derived by an actual being, mind you) has defined the being as "necessarily undefinable by Man."

No, actually it is not. I exist. Which ultimately therefore means that my existence defines me, not your existence defines me, capisca?

I absolutely do, since the being defined above is pure fiction.

No assumption about it.

Nor would I care to, since "belief" is for children.

Fictional creatures do not factually exist, so unless anyone out there has any compelling evidence to refute that, there is no other "position." Belief has nothing to do with it.

Please don't pretend you actually have something to say.

It is obviously contradictory to define a fictional creature that has as one of its necessary essential attributes "undefineable," yes?

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>